Quote:
Originally posted by RACooper
If we continue your analogy though - lets say for the sake of arguement that a member of the IHQ staff writes a policy memo for IHQ stating that it can only be considered hazing if someone ends up in the hospital - does that not create an enivorment more permissive of hazing at both a IHQ and chapter level?
I'm not condemning the whole US govt. for Abu Gharib - but nor am I absolving the whole US govt. either. There were those in policy making positions that set the stage for the abuses in Gitmo, Afghanistan, and Abu Gharib - in fact only a few high level officials and military officers are associated with policy and/or command of the places where abuses/deaths took place.
My point, and the point of the documentary link I posted, is this: contrary to the portrayal of the abuses as the actions of "a few bad apples" there was a more systemic issue with creating the enivroment where these abuses became more or less condoned... the problem is it was only the guys on the lowest rung that took the blame - not the actual commanders, NGOs, or government officials that pretty much orcastrated the whole thing through their actions, words, and policies.
|
Who condoned it? Where's the memo from IHQ? As soon as it was discovered, charges were filed and several are in big boy jail. Do you think the perps asked permission, or reported their acts, to higher ups?
PS: I'm submitting your new word "orcastrated" to the 2006 Best New Word Contest (and I'll share the prize with you in American $$$). Is the best definition "removal of the balls of an orca"?